IDNet: An inception-like deformable non-local network for projection compensation over non-flat textured surfaces

Yuqiang Zhang; Huamin Yang; Cheng Han; Chao Zhang; Chao Xu; Shiyu Lu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318812

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2024
28 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r001
22 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Yakun Ju, Editor PONE-D-24-43381IDNet: An Inception-like Deformable Non-local Network for Projection Compensation over Non-flat Textured SurfacesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Yakun Ju Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This research was funded by Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project, grant number: (20230101179JC) National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Fund Project, grant number: (No. 61702051), Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project, grant number: (20200403188SF).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This research was funded by Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project, grant number: (20230101179JC) National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Fund Project, grant number: (No. 61702051), Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project, grant number: (20200403188SF).” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This research was funded by Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project, grant number: (20230101179JC) National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Fund Project, grant number: (No. 61702051), Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project, grant number: (20200403188SF).” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Additional Editor Comments: Please check the reviewer's suggestions and provide one-by-one feedback. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1) The abstract is not expressing the novelty of the proposed approach. The whole abstract is not impressive and needs to be rewritten. Should focus on what is problem, why it is important to be solved. How it is solved and what are findings. Reviewer #2: The manuscript proposes a novel deep learning method aimed at projection compensation over non-flat textured surfaces, achieving progress in both geometric and photometric compensation. However, there are several aspects that require improvement, and I recommend a major revision. Please check the attached for the detailed suggestions. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r002
Revision 1
5 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer1, Thank you for your valuable feedback on the abstract. We have revised it to better highlight the problem we are addressing and the novelty of our approach. The updated abstract focuses on the challenges of projector compensation on non-flat textured surfaces, particularly in image edge regions, where conventional convolution-based methods struggle. We propose IDNet, which integrates multi-scale deformable convolution modules and non-local attention mechanisms to effectively handle geometric distortions and capture global contextual information. Our experimental results demonstrate that IDNet achieves superior visual quality, particularly in challenging edge regions, while maintaining compensatory performance comparable to existing methods. We believe this revision more clearly communicates the core contributions of our research. Thank you again for your helpful suggestion. Best regards -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Reviewer2, Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comments, we have uploaded a corresponding response letter in the system. Based on your suggestions, we have made revisions to the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your help in improving the quality of the manuscript. Best regards Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r003
20 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Yakun Ju, Editor PONE-D-24-43381R1IDNet: An Inception-like Deformable Non-local Network for Projection Compensation over Non-flat Textured SurfacesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Yakun Ju Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Introduction section is too short and written just like an abstract. It does not satisfy the need and requirements of an interested reader. Therefore author is suggested to rewrite the introduction section which should depicts the introduction of the field, existing methodologies and their associated issues, how the research gap is identified, your proposed approach adopts which unique technique which improves the it performance and make it novel and the contribution of their proposed approach. Author should use bullet 1 for the introduction section and so on for subsequent sections. The bullet of the section Related work should be 2 and there some be some line of text between the main and subsequent heading. This suggestion should be followed in whole paper. Use the reference of the latest approaches of 2023-24 and then address the novelty of the proposed approach. Figure 1,2,3,4 and 5 are missing within the manuscript. Use a consistent formatting style for tables within the paper. Results section needs major revision which demonstrates the training as well the testing results. In the meantime the impacts of each consider parameter in a detailed manner which improves the validity of the approach and quality of the manuscript. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r004
Revision 2
18 Jan 2025 Author Response Respond to Reviewer 1’s Comments Suggestion 1: Introduction section is too short and written just like an abstract. It does not satisfy the need and requirements of an interested reader. Therefore author is suggested to rewrite the introduction section which should depicts the introduction of the field, existing methodologies and their associated issues, how the research gap is identified, your proposed approach adopts which unique technique which improves the it performance and make it novel and the contribution of their proposed approach. Author should use bullet 1 for the introduction section and so on for subsequent sections. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the Introduction section in accordance with your suggestions. The updated version now provides a more comprehensive overview of the field, outlines existing methodologies along with their associated challenges, and highlights the identified research gap. Additionally, we have clearly explained the unique techniques adopted in our proposed approach, how they contribute to performance improvement, and what makes our approach novel. We believe these revisions better address the interests of readers and fulfill the requirements for a robust introduction. We have also organized the content using bullet points for clarity, as per your recommendation. Suggestion 2: The bullet of the section Related work should be 2 and there some be some line of text between the main and subsequent heading. This suggestion should be followed in whole paper. Use the reference of the latest approaches of 2023-24 and then address the novelty of the proposed approach. Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have reviewed the latest paper from 2023-2024 and incorporated relevant approaches, along with their associated techniques and limitations, into the 'Related work' section. The section now reflects the most recent advancements in the field, and we have addressed how our proposed approach overcomes the challenges highlighted in these works, thereby emphasizing its novelty. Additionally, we have followed your formatting recommendation by adding appropriate spacing between the main and subsequent headings, ensuring consistency throughout the paper. Suggestion 3: Figure 1,2,3,4 and 5 are missing within the manuscript. Response: Thank you for pointing out the issue regarding the missing figures. According to the submission guidelines provided by PLOS One (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-figures-and-tables), figures should be uploaded as separate files rather than being included within the manuscript itself. In line with these guidelines, Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been uploaded as individual files to the submission system. We hope this resolves the issue, and we appreciate your understanding. Suggestion 4: Use a consistent formatting style for tables within the paper. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have carefully reviewed the formatting of all tables in the manuscript and have made the necessary adjustments to ensure a consistent style throughout. The tables now follow a uniform formatting style, in line with the journal’s guidelines. We appreciate your attention to detail and believe these changes improve the clarity and presentation of the manuscript. Suggestion 5: Results section needs major revision which demonstrates the training as well the testing results. In the meantime the impacts of each consider parameter in a detailed manner which improves the validity of the approach and quality of the manuscript. Response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable comments regarding our manuscript. We fully agree with your suggestion that the Results section needs major revision to demonstrate both training and testing results. Regarding the training and testing data, we need to candidly explain that due to technical issues (system reinstallation), some of our original training data and curves were not properly preserved. To ensure the reliability and completeness of our research, we have taken the following remedial actions: 1. Re-conducted part of the experimental data collection 2. Fully documented the new training and testing processes 3. Supplemented detailed comparative experimental data in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of the manuscript 4. Added comprehensive analysis of both training and testing curves Through these revisions, we have: • More systematically demonstrated the performance of our proposed method • Strengthened the reliability of our experimental results • Provided in-depth analysis of how each parameter impacts system performance These modifications have not only enhanced the academic quality of our manuscript but have also provided us with valuable research experience. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has played a crucial role in improving the quality of our paper. All changes in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow for your convenience. We are more than willing to make further improvements if you have any additional suggestions or concerns. Best regards Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r005
22 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Yakun Ju, Editor IDNet: An Inception-like Deformable Non-local Network for Projection Compensation over Non-flat Textured Surfaces PONE-D-24-43381R2 Dear Dr. Yang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Yakun Ju Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yakun Ju, Editor PONE-D-24-43381R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Yakun Ju Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318812.r007

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .